The Mathematical Association of America released a statement Friday claiming both that mathematicians should engage in â€œuncomfortable conversationsâ€ about race, and that policies of from the Trump administration, like the lack of a mask mandate in the United States, are somehow an affront to mathematics. The group concludes with a call for a â€œpursuit of justiceâ€ within math. …
“It is time for all members of our profession to acknowledge that mathematics is created by humans and therefore inherently carries human biases. Until this occurs, our community and our students cannot reach full potential,” wrote the group. “Reaching this potential in mathematics relies upon the academy and higher education engaging in critical, challenging, sometimes uncomfortable conversations about the detrimental effects of race and racism on our community. The time is now to move mathematics and education forward in pursuit of justice.”
Members of a Mexican Labor Union recently took violent exception to the artistic appropriation of Revolutionary Leader Emiliano Zapata by an LGBTQ+ painter.
Hyperallergenic could only clutch its pearls and collapse fainting.
A protest by representatives of farmworker unions at the Museo del Palacio de Bellas Artes in Mexico City escalated into a violent confrontation with LGBTQ+ activists on Tuesday, December 10, around noon. The protests were sparked by a painting of Mexican revolutionary leader Emiliano Zapata by artist FabiÃ¡n ChÃ¡irez, on view in the exhibition Emiliano. Zapata DespuÃ©s de Zapata.
â€œLa RevoluciÃ³nâ€ (2014), which depicts a nude Zapata donning a pink hat and high heels suggestively straddling a horse, was condemned by members of the UniÃ³n Nacional de Trabajadores AgrÃcolas (UNTA) and other similar agricultural groups for its characterization of the revolutionary. The clashes around ChÃ¡irezâ€™s painting come at a tumultuous time for the Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes y Literatura (INBAL), the larger institution that oversees the museum, which was closed by unionized workers protesting alleged lack of payments on Wednesday morning. The museum remains closed to the public as of this afternoon.
According to El Universal, Ãlvaro LÃ³pez RÃos, a representative of UNTA, led a storming of the museum around noon on Tuesday to demand that the painting be removed from view and destroyed. Protesters blocked the entrance and chanted â€œBurn it, burn it!â€; they later hurled homophobic insults and other slurs at members of LGBTQ+ communities who had approached the scene in counter-protest. One of them was journalist and activist Antonio Bertran, whom LÃ³pez RÃos hit with a water bottle. A harrowing video shows another young man being violently kicked and beaten by protesters outside the museum.
Hyperallergic spoke to Luis Vargas Santiago, curator of the exhibition Emiliano. Zapata DespuÃ©s de Zapata, which hosts the contested painting. Organized in commemoration of the 100th anniversary of Zapataâ€™s death, the show includes 141 works that trace the life of images of the leader. â€œLa RevoluciÃ³nâ€ is included in a section titled â€œContemporary Revolutions,â€ which focuses on representations of Zapata created in the last 50 years. Many of the works in that grouping, says Vargas, speak to cultural developments in the 1980s and â€™90s in Mexico, when many artists began to create unconventional, and often deliberately feminine, representations of male historical figures. â€œChÃ¡irezâ€™s painting proposes that other representations of heroes are possible, ones that depart from virile, hegemonic masculinity. There can be revolution in other kinds of bodies,â€ says Vargas.
ChÃ¡irezâ€™s representation in particular has incensed those who prefer to remember only a conventionally masculine image of Zapata, widely known as a principal figure of the Mexican Revolution, an early and important advocate for peasant rights in Mexico, and the namesake of the Zapatista movement. To farmworkers and ordinary Mexicans alike, he remains a beloved symbol of empowerment for poor and historically marginalized communities. …
â€œWhat this polemic reveals is that Mexico is still filled with homophobic machos. Because what bothered people was not an image of a Zapata â€˜mandilÃ³n,â€™ a barbaric Zapata, or even the cannibalistic Zapata that appears in revolutionary cartoons,â€ reflects Vargas, describing other works in the show. â€œWhat bothered people was an effeminate Zapata.â€
Vargas recounts that many of the members of agricultural unions who protested on Tuesday claimed ownersship of Zapataâ€™s image. They were invited into the museum to view the entire exhibition, which also includes traditional images of the leader, but they refused.
The Democratic Virginia delegate who has recently come under fire for sponsoring a bill in the Virginia House of Delegates that would allow the termination of a pregnancy up to 40 weeks old, is also the chief patron of a bill that would protect the lives of â€œfall cankerwormsâ€ during certain months.
Democratic Virginia Del. Kathy Tran introduced â€œHouse Bill No. 2495 â€“ Fall cankerworm; spraying prohibited during certain monthsâ€ on Jan. 9, the same day as â€œHouse Bill No. 2491 â€” Abortion; eliminate certain requirements.â€
Tran came under fire Tuesday for her support of legislation that would allow an abortion to be performed just moments before the birth of a child.
Robert Reich served as Secretary of Labor under William Jefferson Clinton. He has also been a professor at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. So, you would think that he’s taken a high school Civics course and/or actually read the Constitution. But you’d clearly be dead wrong.
Robert Reich thinks, that because Impeachment is not likely to occur, and even if it did, Trump’s conviction and removal from office is yet more unlikely, he can personally simply invent a whole new process and procedure to set aside 60-odd million votes and the results of a US presidential election.
Impeachment isnâ€™t enough.
Impeachment would remedy Trumpâ€™s â€œhigh crimes and misdemeanors.â€ But impeachment would not remedy Trumpâ€™s unconstitutional presidency because it would leave in place his vice president, White House staff and Cabinet, as well as all the executive orders he issued and all the legislation he signed, and the official record of his presidency.
The only response to an unconstitutional presidency is to annul it. Annulment would repeal all of an unconstitutional presidentâ€™s appointments and executive actions, and would eliminate the official record of the presidency.
Annulment would recognize that all such appointments, actions, and records were made without constitutional authority.
The Constitution does not specifically provide for annulment of an unconstitutional presidency. But read as a whole, the Constitution leads to the logical conclusion that annulment is the appropriate remedy for one.
After all, the Supreme Court declares legislation that doesnâ€™t comport with the Constitution null and void, as if it had never been passed.
It would logically follow that the Court could declare all legislation and executive actions of a presidency unauthorized by the Constitution to be null and void, as if Trump had never been elected.
The Constitution also gives Congress and the states the power to amend the Constitution, thereby annulling or altering whatever provisions came before. Here, too, it would logically follow that Congress and the states could, through amendment, annul a presidency they determine to be unconstitutional.
As Iâ€™ve said, my betting is Trump remains president at least through 2020 â€“ absent compelling and indisputable evidence he rigged the 2016 election.
But if such evidence comes forth, impeachment isnâ€™t an adequate remedy because Trumpâ€™s presidency would be constitutionally illegitimate.
It should be annulled.
What Robert Reich has in mind for Trump is the fate of that sinful King of Runazar in Lord Dunsany’s tale, whom the Gods decided must not only cease to be, but must cease ever to have been.
This one is so crazy that I guess even the New York Times turned it down.
What would a world be like run by ordinary, not necessarily all-that-elite, college-educated Americans? You can find a pretty good demonstration just by looking at what things are like at a current Sci Fi fan convention.
Last Sunday, for instance, there was trouble with a capital-T at the 42nd WISCON convention.
Today’s geeks and nerds are a sensitive and Woke lot, prone to devote serious thought to important moral questions and to consider the plight of unpopular minorities, minorities like J.R.R. Tolkien’s orcs and Robert A. Heinlein’s bugs.
So a chin-stroking panel was scheduled with some serious scrutiny of certain guilty Living & Dead White Authors on the agenda. Its mission was described, thusly:
In SFF with an action element there’s a desire for cool giant battle scenes, heroes who spin, twirl, slice off heads, and general melee violence. This is an old background trope: the killable mook, guard, or minion whose life can be taken in a cool or funny way is familiar from traditional action films. But many SFF stories take this trope further with a killable race or non-sentient army: the Orcs in Lord of the Rings, the Chitauri in Avengers, and the many robot armies that we see represented solely so that heroes can create cool violent carnage without having to answer difficult moral questions. What happens when SFF comes to rely on this trope? If we’re going to have violent action in SFF, is this better than the alternative? Is it ever not just super racist?”
Apparently, however, all the Social Justice was marred by the intrusion of (the horror! the horror!) a dissenter who triggered the panelists and caused harm to these sensitive souls through vocal thought crime.
As we all know, saying things people don’t like constitutes harassment.
The WISCON 42 blog has the details:
During the Killable Bodies In SFF panel at WisCon this morning (Sunday), a panelist engaged in Nazi and Confederate apologia and also appeared to posit that disabled or injured people sometimes â€œhave to be sacrificed.â€
They continued this behavior even after the audience and other panel members expressed the harm this was causing them.
WisCon rejects these ideas. They are in conflict with our Code of Conduct. The panelist in question will be banned and asked to immediately leave convention spaces.
The relevant passage from the Code of Conduct is here:
Harassment includes: Verbal or written comments or displayed images that harmfully reinforce structures of oppression (related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age, religion, geographic origin, or class); deliberate intimidation; stalking; body policing (including gender policing in all bathrooms); unwelcome photography or recording; sustained disruption of talks or other events; inappropriate physical contact; and unwelcome sexual attention.
Please read the full Code of Conduct here.
If you or anyone you know are in need of any support following this experience, please contact us. We will be working to find folks who can provide emotional support to you.
ETA: This particular individual has been banned for WisCon 42. The decision as to whether this ban will be extended in the future will be determined by our Anti Abuse Team post-con. Should you have information to contribute, you are welcome to email firstname.lastname@example.org.
Lily Loofbourow asserts that “our entire society has agreed to organize itself around the pursuit of the straight male orgasm.”
Women don’t leave encounters they don’t like. Women go through all sorts of inconvenience and discomfort to be attractive. Women dutifully participate in sex which they do not enjoy and may even find painful. And it’s all our fault! Men are such beasts.
When Babe.net published a pseudonymous woman’s account of a difficult encounter with Aziz Ansari that made her cry, the internet exploded with “takes” arguing that the #MeToo movement had finally gone too far. “Grace,” the 23-year-old woman, was not an employee of Ansari’s, meaning there were no workplace dynamics. Her repeated objections and pleas that they “slow down” were all well and good, but they did not square with the fact that she eventually gave Ansari oral sex. Finally, crucially, she was free to leave.
Why didn’t she just get out of there as soon as she felt uncomfortable? many people explicitly or implicitly asked.
It’s a rich question, and there are plenty of possible answers. But if you’re asking in good faith, if you really want to think through why someone might have acted as she did, the most important one is this: Women are enculturated to be uncomfortable most of the time. And to ignore their discomfort.
This is so baked into our society I feel like we forget it’s there. To steal from David Foster Wallace, this is the water we swim in.
HT: Leah Libresco Sargeant.
The problem, of course, is that the contemporary religion of Leftism believes that Ideology and Theory are omnipotent while denying that Nature exercises powers over us outside our understanding or control.
Who knew things had gone that far?
Sally Fields and a bunch of Hollywood types you never heard of are warning Congress that they will not tolerate Donald Trump’s “Racism, Sexism, or Xenophobia” and that they expect Congress to block any legislation opposed to the interests of any and all of the fashionable Left’s pet victim groups of privilege.
If Congress fails to oblige, I guess they’ll all sit down and have a great big cry or make another ineffably self-important video.